You're not buying the tripe you just regurgitated, are you? Google's "bets" are more like the small blind in a poker game. They are just trial testing. They have to put something out there for PR. If it fails, they fold and barely lose anything. If they really wanted to gamble, release the Glass for mass production. Google is putting its toes in the water rather than jumping in feet first.
When Apple gambles, they go all-In or nearly go all in.
Apple's aversion To failure? Does ios 7 ring a bell? If that's not a big risk, I don't know what is anymore. They could have done it the Google way and focus grouped it to death or make it only for the 5S at first.
Google out innovates Apple? That's laughable. You have no idea what Apple is working on. Just because Googs PR machine is running full blast with baby steps doesn't mean they are taking risks. If Googs end Glass, driverless cars, etc., there would be no backlash. There would be no Google is doomed meme.
I would say Google (and other companies, like Facebook) do make gambles but they do with cash and stocks. The purchase is their gamble. With Apple it's betting everything on massively complex idea that has been whittled down to (usually) be something that seems simple because of it's elegant and thoughtful design. Google et al. usually present smaller, less gambly ideas to see how the world reacts and if they can monetize it.
It's clear Apple's focus is very different even though all these companies are looking for answers and want to profit. As noted in a recent DaringFireball article Apple took a huge gamble with iOS 7. I was using it since the first beta and it took about week to really love what they were doing with it, I was surprised at how little backlash they received after it was launched. Sure, other companies change up their Android UIs all the time but Apple has around a half-billion(?) devices now using iOS 7. That's a huge gamble, IMO.
I think you actually made this person's point for them. It's not that they aren't innovative, but they spend a lot of time showing all the cool stuff they are working on without really releasing anything that is a finished, usable product by the general population. In other words, Google runs in sort of a constant state of beta and they like it that way.
Now before you get all upset with this, let me give an explanation. Google Glass. I have one and developed a beta app for it. It's neat. It's a nice piece of hardware. The packaging made me feel like I was opening an Apple product. But I can't deny the fact that this $1,500 device is sitting in a cabinet, untouched and collecting dust. Why? Because no one at Google thought through how this would actually be used in real life. Sure they have all the videos and it's a neat demo. But at the end of the day, everyone using it doesn't want to be accused of being a "Glasshole" so the safe bet is to not use it. It also needs work. For instance, you can't just talk to it whenever you want so it requires you to tap the side of your head. It's hard to read in a number of conditions and people with glasses are out of luck. Combine that with the fact that it's really expensive and not really a standalone device (aka, you need a Google phone to help it get a cellular connection or to configure the WiFi. It's an unpolished beta product.
Contrast that with Apple. When it released the original iPhone, they thought through everything at the time. It really took the industry by absolute surprise. It worked flawlessly right out of the box (my wife bought one of the original $700 versions).
So while it *appears* that Apple is not innovating... they are... truly are. They are iterating and refining and perfecting the "next big thing" until its done. Every other company on earth makes that process as public as possible trying to make it appear that they are coming out with the next big thing that may never ship. Take Amazon drone delivery. Cool concept and wonder R+D going on but it will probably never exist. Why? Regulations and societal response to unmanned drones flying around their neighborhoods. There's a big difference between technology and appropriate technology. Apple does the latter.
Google is a innovating Co. but it also has no problem ripping off apple...but to say it invented internet search is just not true...next your be saying they invented the internet.
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.
I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
I hope so. People who try to brute force creativity (by just trying everything) soon learn the hard way about Combinatorics, i.e. the sheer and unexplorable number of ways even a small number of things (such as ideas or technologies) can be combined.
The two most important attributes for a business seeking to make a mark in innovative technology are sincerity and trust -- once you learn to fake these, you've got it made!
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
Ummm... Google bought an already totally-developed YouTube, then futzed with it for years without making any money on it (it's still not clear that YouTube makes Google much money). I don't see innovation there by Google - all they did was try to add advertising to it. Of course they innovated in search - they improved it immensely. I don't use it (because of Google's privacy violations), but the vast majority of people do. Other than search, I just don't see it. Most everything else they've done would have been done just as well by others if Google didn't exist.
If Google was truly an innovative company, they would be working on improving their core product, search, and would have shown results since.
Instead, the only innovation for years in search is what Wolfram did with alpha. Alpha is a potential disruptor, but Wolfram is a small company (500 or so) and privately held so they dont have the ressources a giant like Google would commit. And the ones who recognised Wolfram work strength are Apple.
That is one of the true strengths of Apple too. Not only the innovate themselves, but they are able to identify innovators and partner with them or buy them before anyone else can react. Sometimes it dont bear identifiable fruits (liquidmetal) but they still avoided that the innovators fall in competitors hands.
Buying at inflated prices other successful companies, like Google and Facebook did so often, is not innovation, nor did good things to the bottom line in most cases.
1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
The thing that sets apart Google Now is that it is predictive. It surfaces information before you search for it.
From my personal experience, these are the things it has done for me:
1. When I searched tonight for a club's webpage to see who was going to DJ, Google Now had a card ready that provided me with travel time and a single click to get navigation. I didn't search for this club in Google Maps.
2. Based on my search patterns, Google Now has brought up cards that link to articles relevant to what it knows as my "research topics." In my case, it links me to articles regarding smartphones and other gadgets a lot. It even links me to websites I don't regularly visit as long as the articles are relevant to me.
3. Based on my frequency of visiting certain websites, it brings up cards about updates to those websites. I get a lot of my wallpapers from the website of a digital artist, and whenever he updates his site with new images a card appears in Google Now to alert me of the update.
4. When shipping notifications or flight itineraries arrive in my inbox, Google Now tracks those things automatically. It tells me if my flight is delayed or lets me know the status of my package.
5. Based on where I routinely drive, Google Now notifies me of the commute times when there is heavy traffic.
6. Whenever a team who I follow is playing a game, it brings up a card tracking the score automatically and also provides a notification of the score in the event that I haven't looked at Google Now to see the card.
7. It brings up a card with a handful of local events that it thinks I might be interested in. Normally I ignore this card, but last week one of the events was a play that was coming through town while on tour. I knew that one of my distant high school friends was acting in it because it's popped up on my Facebook newsfeed before, but I didn't know the play was coming through Orlando until I saw it on Google Now.
I imagine the experience is different for other people because there are a lot of things it can do that I never take advantage of, like public transit information for example. All in all I think it's a pretty nice tool, and it makes it much easier to gather useful information.
At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
It isn't true, but it could be argued. What Apple's doing behind closed doors doesn't mean Apple is not innovating right now. And besides, the 2013 MacBook Air is considered the best laptop ever made; that's innovation. It's thinness combined with its extraordinary battery life is innovation; it didn't happen by accident. The iPad Air is innovative, the Mac Pro is innovative. Were any of them revolutionary? No. But that doesn't mean there wasn't innovations. Touch ID is the first time there's a reliable and user friendly finger print reader in a consumer grade product. That's real innovation, dude. The only other finger print readers in consumer grade products was the Atrix smartphone (a feature that was removed because it wasn't reliable), and the S5 (did you read The Verge's review of that reader?). Wake up!!!
Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.
I'm not missing the point. If you noticed, I was positing another observation.
Then again Hotmail didn't invent Free Email. Email has been a free service on UNIX before 99% of members on this board took their first piss.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
Google now just tells me what the weather is outside - I can look through the window for that - or how long it will take me to get from the office - like I don't already know that.
Google maps street view is good but Google has never implemented a version as good as the one on iOS before maps.
Google search - I don't use it on any if my devices now - even the android ones.
Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
But Google, like Amazon, loves to get into areas they neitherakes money or an industry they know well...
I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.
To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.
It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
No, the issue at hand is that you have not proved that Google is the "more" innovative company; and you can't. That's ok, because the reason you can't is due to the fact that nobody knows what Apple is working on.
And that was the original point.
Quote:
Chipsy
Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
OT: Apple has started advertising 5C on Tumblr. This leads me to believe that the 5C will be sticking around and will become Apple's entry-level phone.
What I posted may not be as thorough as you'd like, but you're welcome to correct any innacuracies or add any critical points about either that you feel I left out.
You are confusing what the end consumer sees on the outside with the software design methodology used on the inside. They are highly non-related.
The success of the Chromebook is pretty undisputed. You may want to double check your sources on that one.
EDIT: On second though, you're probably referring to Google Chromebook vs. Samsung Chromebook? The latter of which is certainly a top contender. I'm not sure how Google's Chromebook does (or even who makes it for them).
ChromeBooks are undistributed failures by most accounts.
No, the issue at hand is that you have not proved that Google is the "[SIZE=14px]more[/SIZE]" innovative company; and you can't. That's ok, because the reason you can't is due to the fact that nobody knows what Apple is working on.
And that was the original point.
Lol that looks like the type of thing Fox News would do. Quoting someone while cutting out the essential part of it. It actually started with: 'It could be argued that Google is the more innovative...'
Comments
I would say Google (and other companies, like Facebook) do make gambles but they do with cash and stocks. The purchase is their gamble. With Apple it's betting everything on massively complex idea that has been whittled down to (usually) be something that seems simple because of it's elegant and thoughtful design. Google et al. usually present smaller, less gambly ideas to see how the world reacts and if they can monetize it.
It's clear Apple's focus is very different even though all these companies are looking for answers and want to profit. As noted in a recent DaringFireball article Apple took a huge gamble with iOS 7. I was using it since the first beta and it took about week to really love what they were doing with it, I was surprised at how little backlash they received after it was launched. Sure, other companies change up their Android UIs all the time but Apple has around a half-billion(?) devices now using iOS 7. That's a huge gamble, IMO.
I have to disagree here. These aren't big gambles. Witness the Moto deal. People still believe that failure was a success.
I think you actually made this person's point for them. It's not that they aren't innovative, but they spend a lot of time showing all the cool stuff they are working on without really releasing anything that is a finished, usable product by the general population. In other words, Google runs in sort of a constant state of beta and they like it that way.
Now before you get all upset with this, let me give an explanation. Google Glass. I have one and developed a beta app for it. It's neat. It's a nice piece of hardware. The packaging made me feel like I was opening an Apple product. But I can't deny the fact that this $1,500 device is sitting in a cabinet, untouched and collecting dust. Why? Because no one at Google thought through how this would actually be used in real life. Sure they have all the videos and it's a neat demo. But at the end of the day, everyone using it doesn't want to be accused of being a "Glasshole" so the safe bet is to not use it. It also needs work. For instance, you can't just talk to it whenever you want so it requires you to tap the side of your head. It's hard to read in a number of conditions and people with glasses are out of luck. Combine that with the fact that it's really expensive and not really a standalone device (aka, you need a Google phone to help it get a cellular connection or to configure the WiFi. It's an unpolished beta product.
Contrast that with Apple. When it released the original iPhone, they thought through everything at the time. It really took the industry by absolute surprise. It worked flawlessly right out of the box (my wife bought one of the original $700 versions).
So while it *appears* that Apple is not innovating... they are... truly are. They are iterating and refining and perfecting the "next big thing" until its done. Every other company on earth makes that process as public as possible trying to make it appear that they are coming out with the next big thing that may never ship. Take Amazon drone delivery. Cool concept and wonder R+D going on but it will probably never exist. Why? Regulations and societal response to unmanned drones flying around their neighborhoods. There's a big difference between technology and appropriate technology. Apple does the latter.
Google is a innovating Co. but it also has no problem ripping off apple...but to say it invented internet search is just not true...next your be saying they invented the internet.
FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.
The two most important attributes for a business seeking to make a mark in innovative technology are sincerity and trust -- once you learn to fake these, you've got it made!
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
Ummm... Google bought an already totally-developed YouTube, then futzed with it for years without making any money on it (it's still not clear that YouTube makes Google much money). I don't see innovation there by Google - all they did was try to add advertising to it. Of course they innovated in search - they improved it immensely. I don't use it (because of Google's privacy violations), but the vast majority of people do. Other than search, I just don't see it. Most everything else they've done would have been done just as well by others if Google didn't exist.
If Google was truly an innovative company, they would be working on improving their core product, search, and would have shown results since.
Instead, the only innovation for years in search is what Wolfram did with alpha. Alpha is a potential disruptor, but Wolfram is a small company (500 or so) and privately held so they dont have the ressources a giant like Google would commit. And the ones who recognised Wolfram work strength are Apple.
That is one of the true strengths of Apple too. Not only the innovate themselves, but they are able to identify innovators and partner with them or buy them before anyone else can react. Sometimes it dont bear identifiable fruits (liquidmetal) but they still avoided that the innovators fall in competitors hands.
Buying at inflated prices other successful companies, like Google and Facebook did so often, is not innovation, nor did good things to the bottom line in most cases.
If Google was truly an innovative company, they would be working on improving their core product, search, and would have shown results since.
Improving search like adding nutrition information to search results for food perhaps?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/30/google-adds-nutrition-info-for-over-1000-fruits-vegetables-meats-and-meals-to-its-search-results/
Or maybe improving stock search results?
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2326141/6-Google-Search-Changes-You-May-Have-Missed
1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
The thing that sets apart Google Now is that it is predictive. It surfaces information before you search for it.
From my personal experience, these are the things it has done for me:
1. When I searched tonight for a club's webpage to see who was going to DJ, Google Now had a card ready that provided me with travel time and a single click to get navigation. I didn't search for this club in Google Maps.
2. Based on my search patterns, Google Now has brought up cards that link to articles relevant to what it knows as my "research topics." In my case, it links me to articles regarding smartphones and other gadgets a lot. It even links me to websites I don't regularly visit as long as the articles are relevant to me.
3. Based on my frequency of visiting certain websites, it brings up cards about updates to those websites. I get a lot of my wallpapers from the website of a digital artist, and whenever he updates his site with new images a card appears in Google Now to alert me of the update.
4. When shipping notifications or flight itineraries arrive in my inbox, Google Now tracks those things automatically. It tells me if my flight is delayed or lets me know the status of my package.
5. Based on where I routinely drive, Google Now notifies me of the commute times when there is heavy traffic.
6. Whenever a team who I follow is playing a game, it brings up a card tracking the score automatically and also provides a notification of the score in the event that I haven't looked at Google Now to see the card.
7. It brings up a card with a handful of local events that it thinks I might be interested in. Normally I ignore this card, but last week one of the events was a play that was coming through town while on tour. I knew that one of my distant high school friends was acting in it because it's popped up on my Facebook newsfeed before, but I didn't know the play was coming through Orlando until I saw it on Google Now.
I imagine the experience is different for other people because there are a lot of things it can do that I never take advantage of, like public transit information for example. All in all I think it's a pretty nice tool, and it makes it much easier to gather useful information.
It isn't true, but it could be argued. What Apple's doing behind closed doors doesn't mean Apple is not innovating right now. And besides, the 2013 MacBook Air is considered the best laptop ever made; that's innovation. It's thinness combined with its extraordinary battery life is innovation; it didn't happen by accident. The iPad Air is innovative, the Mac Pro is innovative. Were any of them revolutionary? No. But that doesn't mean there wasn't innovations. Touch ID is the first time there's a reliable and user friendly finger print reader in a consumer grade product. That's real innovation, dude. The only other finger print readers in consumer grade products was the Atrix smartphone (a feature that was removed because it wasn't reliable), and the S5 (did you read The Verge's review of that reader?). Wake up!!!
Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.
I'm not missing the point. If you noticed, I was positing another observation.
Then again Hotmail didn't invent Free Email. Email has been a free service on UNIX before 99% of members on this board took their first piss.
Google now just tells me what the weather is outside - I can look through the window for that - or how long it will take me to get from the office - like I don't already know that.
Google maps street view is good but Google has never implemented a version as good as the one on iOS before maps.
Google search - I don't use it on any if my devices now - even the android ones.
I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.
To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.
It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
No, the issue at hand is that you have not proved that Google is the "more" innovative company; and you can't. That's ok, because the reason you can't is due to the fact that nobody knows what Apple is working on.
And that was the original point.
http://isee5c.tumblr.com
You are confusing what the end consumer sees on the outside with the software design methodology used on the inside. They are highly non-related.
ChromeBooks are undistributed failures by most accounts.
http://gs.statcounter.com/chart.php?20140227=undefined&device=Desktop & Mobile & Tablet&device_hidden=desktop+mobile+tablet&statType_hidden=os®ion_hidden=ww&granularity=daily&statType=Operating System®ion=Worldwide&fromInt=20130801&toInt=20140227&fromMonthYear=2013-08&fromDay=01&toMonthYear=2014-02&toDay=27&multi-device=true&csv=1
Lol that looks like the type of thing Fox News would do. Quoting someone while cutting out the essential part of it. It actually started with: 'It could be argued that Google is the more innovative...'
That's a big difference.